US Constitution prohibits Trump from ever being President again

[Kenr6583]

It's entirely possible that the rabid democrats who keep throwing ---- against the wall thinking that some may stick are actually helping Trump. Voters are tired of seeing stupid meaningless charges being filed. That and if the democrats insist on nominating a doddering, senile old man who has an air head for a vice president, who would become president when Sleepy Joe pops his clogs, actually makes old man Trump a better choice.. Voters may be stupid, BUT, not stupid.enough to risk Kamala becoming president. We may be ready for a female president, BUT, not Kamala!

Trump is a con artist, nothing more nothing less. And he must be really good because it seems he has a highly intellectual individual such as yourself conned into believing he has broken no laws.

[glalt]

It's entirely possible that the rabid democrats who keep throwing ---- against the wall thinking that some may stick are actually helping Trump. Voters are tired of seeing stupid meaningless charges being filed. That and if the democrats insist on nominating a doddering, senile old man who has an air head for a vice president, who would become president when Sleepy Joe pops his clogs, actually makes old man Trump a better choice.. Voters may be stupid, BUT, not stupid.enough to risk Kamala becoming president. We may be ready for a female president, BUT, not Kamala!

Trump is a con artist, nothing more nothing less. And he must be really good because it seems he has a highly intellectual individual such as yourself conned into believing he has broken no laws.

WELL, between you and I, I think Trump has shot his wad. I just hope that the democrats nominate someone other than Biden and his air head. OR, the republicans nominate a viable candidate. I have no intention of ever living in the USA again. I'm set for whatever remains of my long life right here in Thailand.

[tamada]

Trump can't run for president in Colo. because of Jan. 6, court says in historic move

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-i ... =105785727

[JimboPSM]

Those with a modicum of cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills who watched the video and read the linked article from "The Atlantic" in the OP should know that this topic was specifically about Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... section-3/

There is now precious little doubt that both parties will become embroiled in “Section 3” court proceedings in 2024 irrespective of whether Trump is included or excluded by the relevant Election Secretary (in each of the 50 states) from the 2024 Presidential Election ballot.

The results of these proceedings will be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS where ultimately not only will the case be decided, but also the legitimacy of SCOTUS and the future of the United States as a functional democracy.

Latest development:

SCOTUS has announced an accelerated timetable for hearing arguments commencing 8th February 2024.

It will be interesting (to me) to see to what degree originalism and textualism might be used by the respective parties in their arguments and then to what degree the justices may use originalism and textualism in their ruling.

Originalism and textualism has a rather odious history of being seriously abused by some justices (e.g. Clarence Thomas) to avoid rulings that would actually benefit US citizens instead of benefiting, until recently, their undisclosed benefactors (e.g cronies who collect Nazi memorabilia).
.

[Stantheman]

The biggest problem with section three is there is nothing that states who will decide insurrection. My personal thoughts is Congress for federal office and state legislators for state offices. Also don't know why SCOTUS is waiting so long to hear arguments as we all know they will vote against Colorado, the hearing is just a show.

[glalt]

J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe make the case for Trump’s disqualification from public office:

The extract below is from the article in the “The Atlantic” referred to in the YouTube video above.

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

By J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president...

Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cy/675048/

.

It's a HUGE leap from someone believing and arguing that the election was not valid and calling it treason. Are the democrats also going to ask for the death penalty? I predict that this charge is going to be thrown out of court.

[tamada]

Raising legal challenges to the ballot wasn't treasonous. However, after all these legal challenges to the ballot were dismissed as either fallacious or fanciful, inciting one's followers to prevent the legal ratification of the ballot is an act of subversion and that is treasonous.

Let's see if SCOTUS is as scared of invoking the 'T' word as everyone else appears to be.

[jackspratt]

It's a HUGE leap from someone believing and arguing that the election was not valid and calling it treason. Are the democrats also going to ask for the death penalty? I predict that this charge is going to be thrown out of court.

In this instance, at least, the BOB is not being "charged" with anything.

It is also a HUGE leap from believing and arguing an election was not valid, to taking actions to illegally overthrow that election.

Which Trump is clearly guilty of.

[Kenr6583]

Even though I believe Trump is disgusting and was a terrible president I don’t believe a state has the right to keep him off the ballot, that should be up to Congress.

That being said, I do believe he is guilty of insurrection and aiding and abetting insurrections by claiming he will issue pardons. When the Supreme Court comes back and rules that Colorado has no right to keep him off the ballot, which I believe they will, they will be saying that the POTUS has unfettered rights to do whatever they want and cannot be held accountable, and that is a dangerous precedent.

[Whistler]

Ken,

You will know better than me, but I understand that each state conducts federal elections under state law, the fiasco in Florida with Al Gore I believe was the Supreme Court bowing to that arrangement.

Given this precedent, could SCOTUS simply refuse the case. I know at the moment they say they will hear the case by Feb 8, but they could back off if such a challenge is lodged?

[Udon Map]

You will know better than me, but I understand that each state conducts federal elections under state law, the fiasco in Florida with Al Gore I believe was the Supreme Court bowing to that arrangement.

Yes, I believe that that is the scheme set up by the Constitution. IMO it's fairly stupid. The Federal government should set the rules for Federal elections, the states for state elections.

Given this precedent, could SCOTUS simply refuse the case. I know at the moment they say they will hear the case by Feb 8, but they could back off if such a challenge is lodged?

Can they? Sure. Will they? Not a chance. They thought about this long and hard before agreeing to accept it on an expedited schedule. They won't change their minds now.

[Kenr6583]

Ken,

You will know better than me, but I understand that each state conducts federal elections under state law, the fiasco in Florida with Al Gore I believe was the Supreme Court bowing to that arrangement.

Given this precedent, could SCOTUS simply refuse the case. I know at the moment they say they will hear the case by Feb 8, but they could back off if such a challenge is lodged?

The way I interpret it it’s up to the states on how the election is conducted, but not up to them as to who can be on the ballot or to be able to change the results.

[Whistler]

Ken,

You will know better than me, but I understand that each state conducts federal elections under state law, the fiasco in Florida with Al Gore I believe was the Supreme Court bowing to that arrangement.

Given this precedent, could SCOTUS simply refuse the case. I know at the moment they say they will hear the case by Feb 8, but they could back off if such a challenge is lodged?

The way I interpret it it’s up to the states on how the election is conducted, but not up to them as to who can be on the ballot or to be able to change the results.

In Florida, they undoubtedly made some very, very iffy decisions that certainly changed the results, the famous hanging chads controvery that installed Bush as the winner instead of Gore.

[noosard]

I saw that Arnold has people supporting him for president even though he was born in Austria
Article stated he cant run as against contitution, but there maybe a legal loophole to work around this

[Whistler]

I saw that Arnold has people supporting him for president even though he was born in Austria
Article stated he cant run as against contitution, but there maybe a legal loophole to work around this

Old story, he wanted the constitution changed when he was Californian Gosvenor, NFC

[noosard]

Voters have the right to choose the president they want, regardless of the Constitution
For this, Donald Trump is responsible. Incredibly, he has inspired leading Democrats and Republicans to take the position that being constitutionally ineligible to serve as president is no longer a barrier to running for president.

A new consensus is emerging: Voters have the right to choose whomever they want as president, no matter what the Constitution says.
https://news.yahoo.com/schwarzenegger-p ... 54467.html

[Whistler]

The single most important maxim in journalism used to be 'check your sources', sadly this no longer seems to be the norm. The source of this article is from a really off-the-wall site called Zocalo Public Square. Using vague terms like 'leading Republicans and Democrats' without naming a single source or public statement is a givaway.

There is no way on god's little earth that Arnie will get a run and have the constitution overturned.

[Potamoi]

The area that concerns me is how is the offence determined?

"The state court, acting in a challenge to Trump by Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado, found him ineligible for the presidency under a constitutional provision that bars anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding public office, barring him from the primary ballot"

I'm no lawyer, perhaps our learned moderator can chime in but wouldn't this apply only if Trump is found guilty in a court of law after a trial? Are we not innocent until proven guilty under American law?

I'm also no Trump fan but for me what Colorado and Maine are doing is opening yet another area where opponents can try to win an election without debating issues. Using technical cracks in the armour the forefathers put in place to keep away from the tyrant rule we broke away from does not seem to be shall we say... cricket? These type of tactics seem to be getting more and more out of control since the George W and Al Gore days of dangling chads in Florida.

Robbie's monologue here kind of says why it is wrong:


Biden's gang can only try those shenanigans and do not have the wherewithal to pull something like this off:

[maaka]

has'nt been found guilty of insurrection, hasnt been arrested for it, or even been to court over it..Just people in power making their own call as to what he did, or didnt do. The Secretary of State for Maine cannot ban someone from standing because she thinks he may have murdered someone, when in fact that person has not even been convicted of murder..innocence until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, by a jury of 12 people . That is what the law dictates..thtas why we have such a system.. The Constitution is not the law, and the law is not the Constitution....thats how I see it, but who am I..

[Kenr6583]

has'nt been found guilty of insurrection, hasnt been arrested for it, or even been to court over it..Just people in power making their own call as to what he did, or didnt do. The Secretary of State for Maine cannot ban someone from standing because she thinks he may have murdered someone, when in fact that person has not even been convicted of murder..innocence until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, by a jury of 12 people . That is what the law dictates..thtas why we have such a system.. The Constitution is not the law, and the law is not the Constitution....thats how I see it, but who am I..

Sorry but The Constitution is the law of the land. That being said I personally don’t think the state has the right to ban him from being on the GOP ticket, but at the same time Article 14 does not state that someone has to be convicted of such crime.

I believe only congress has the power to keep someone off the ticket under Article 14.